Messenger RNA (mRNA) BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be effective in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 in randomized placebo-controlled Phase III trials (1,2); however, the benefits of these vaccines for preventing asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) infection, particularly when administered in real-world conditions, is less well understood. Using prospective cohorts of health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers* in eight U.S. locations during December 14, 2020-March 13, 2021, CDC routinely tested for SARS-CoV-2 infections every week regardless of symptom status and at the onset of symptoms consistent with COVID-19-associated illness. Among 3,950 participants with no previous laboratory documentation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, 2,479 (62.8%) received both recommended mRNA doses and 477 (12.1%) received only one dose of mRNA vaccine.(†) Among unvaccinated participants, 1.38 SARS-CoV-2 infections were confirmed by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) per 1,000 person-days.(§) In contrast, among fully immunized (≥14 days after second dose) persons, 0.04 infections per 1,000 person-days were reported, and among partially immunized (≥14 days after first dose and before second dose) persons, 0.19 infections per 1,000 person-days were reported. Estimated mRNA vaccine effectiveness for prevention of infection, adjusted for study site, was 90% for full immunization and 80% for partial immunization. These findings indicate that authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are effective for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of symptom status, among working-age adults in real-world conditions. COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for all eligible persons.

IMPORTANCE: Understanding the relative risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection across occupations can inform guidance to protect workers and communities. Less is known about infection risk for first responders and other essential workers than for health care personnel. OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevaccination incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among first responders and other essential workers with incidence among health care personnel. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a prospective cohort study of health care personnel, first responders, and other essential workers in Arizona from July 20, 2020, to March 14, 2021. Participants were seronegative at enrollment, had frequent direct contact with others at work, worked at least 20 hours per week, and submitted weekly nasal swab specimens for real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction analysis. Data analyses were performed from April 19, 2021, to June 4, 2021. EXPOSURES: Occupation was the primary exposure of interest. Confounders assessed were sociodemographic characteristics, health status, community exposure, and work exposure. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Crude incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined as the sum of first positive SARS-CoV-2 infections in participants divided by person-weeks at risk. Negative binomial regression was used to model SARS-CoV-2 infection by occupation to estimate unadjusted and adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs). The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) method was used to generate a parsimonious multivariable model. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 1766 Arizona workers (mean age [SD], 43.8 [11.1] years; 1093 [61.9%] female; 401 [22.7%] were Hispanic and 1530 [86.6%] were White individuals) of whom 44.2% were health care personnel, 22.4% first responders, and 33.4% other essential workers. The cohort was followed up for 23 393 person-weeks. Crude incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 6.7, 13.2, and 7.4 per 1000 person-weeks at risk for health care personnel, first responders, and other essential workers, respectively. In unadjusted models, first responders had twice the incidence of infection as health care personnel (IRRs, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.44-2.79). While attenuated, this risk remained elevated in adjusted LASSO-optimized models (IRR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.07-2.38). Risk of infection among other essential workers was no different than for health care personnel in unadjusted or adjusted models. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This prospective cohort study found that first responders had a higher incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection than health care personnel, even after adjusting for potential confounding factors. Given their frequent contact with each other and with the public and their high rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the safety challenges for first responders warrant greater public health attention and research.

BACKGROUND: Information is limited regarding the effectiveness of the two-dose messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) in preventing infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and in attenuating coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) when administered in real-world conditions. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study involving 3975 health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers. From December 14, 2020, to April 10, 2021, the participants completed weekly SARS-CoV-2 testing by providing mid-turbinate nasal swabs for qualitative and quantitative reverse-transcriptase-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) analysis. The formula for calculating vaccine effectiveness was 100% × (1 - hazard ratio for SARS-CoV-2 infection in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated participants), with adjustments for the propensity to be vaccinated, study site, occupation, and local viral circulation. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 204 participants (5%), of whom 5 were fully vaccinated (≥14 days after dose 2), 11 partially vaccinated (≥14 days after dose 1 and <14 days after dose 2), and 156 unvaccinated; the 32 participants with indeterminate vaccination status (<14 days after dose 1) were excluded. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness was 91% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76 to 97) with full vaccination and 81% (95% CI, 64 to 90) with partial vaccination. Among participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the mean viral RNA load was 40% lower (95% CI, 16 to 57) in partially or fully vaccinated participants than in unvaccinated participants. In addition, the risk of febrile symptoms was 58% lower (relative risk, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.98) and the duration of illness was shorter, with 2.3 fewer days spent sick in bed (95% CI, 0.8 to 3.7). CONCLUSIONS: Authorized mRNA vaccines were highly effective among working-age adults in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection when administered in real-world conditions, and the vaccines attenuated the viral RNA load, risk of febrile symptoms, and duration of illness among those who had breakthrough infection despite vaccination. (Funded by the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).

BACKGROUND: The Arizona Healthcare, Emergency Response, and Other Essential workers Study (AZ HEROES) aims to examine the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 illness among adults with high occupational exposure risk. OBJECTIVE: Study objectives include estimating incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in essential workers by symptom presentation and demographic factors, determining independent effects of occupational and community exposures on incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, establishing molecular and immunologic characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 infection in essential workers, describing the duration and patterns of rRT-PCR-positivity, and examining post-vaccine immunologic response. METHODS: Eligible participants include Arizona residents aged 18-85 years who work at least 20 hours per week in an occupation involving regular direct contact (within three feet) with others. Recruitment goals are stratified by demographic characteristics (50% aged 40 or older, 50% women, and 50% Hispanic or American Indian), by occupation (40% healthcare personnel, 30% first responders, and 30% other essential workers), and by prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (with up to 50% seropositive at baseline). Information on sociodemographics, health and medical history, vaccination status, exposures to individuals with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, use of personal protective equipment, and perceived risks are collected at enrollment and updated through quarterly surveys. Every week, participants complete active surveillance for COVID-19-like illness (CLI) and self-collect nasal swabs. Additional self-collected nasal swab and saliva specimens are collected in the event of CLI onset. Respiratory specimens are sent to Marshfield Laboratories and tested for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) assay. CLI symptoms and impact on work and productivity are followed through illness resolution. Serum specimens are collected every 3 months and additional sera are collected following incident rRT-PCR positivity and after each COVID-19 vaccine dose. Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections will be calculated by person-weeks at risk and compared by occupation and demographic characteristics and by seropositivity status and infection and vaccination history. RESULTS: The AZ HEROES study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Enrollment began July 27, 2020 and as of May 1, 2021 a total of 3,165 participants have been enrolled in the study. CONCLUSIONS: AZ HEROES is unique in aiming to recruit a diverse sample of essential workers and prospectively following strata of SARS-CoV-2 seronegative and seropositive adults. Survey results combined with active surveillance data on exposure, CLI, weekly molecular diagnostic testing, and periodic serology will be used to estimate the incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, assess the intensity and durability of immune responses to natural infection and COVID-19 vaccination, and contribute to the evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT: DERR1-10.2196/28925.

BACKGROUND: To address high COVID-19 burden in U.S. nursing homes, rapid SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests have been widely distributed in those facilities. However, performance data are lacking, especially in asymptomatic people. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing when used for facility-wide testing during a nursing home outbreak. DESIGN: A prospective evaluation involving 3 facility-wide rounds of testing where paired respiratory specimens were collected to evaluate the performance of the BinaxNOW antigen test compared with virus culture and real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Early and late infection were defined using changes in RT-PCR cycle threshold values and prior test results. SETTING: A nursing home with an ongoing SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. PARTICIPANTS: 532 paired specimens collected from 234 available residents and staff. MEASUREMENTS: Percentage of positive agreement (PPA) and percentage of negative agreement (PNA) for BinaxNOW compared with RT-PCR and virus culture. RESULTS: BinaxNOW PPA with virus culture, used for detection of replication-competent virus, was 95%. However, the overall PPA of antigen testing with RT-PCR was 69%, and PNA was 98%. When only the first positive test result was analyzed for each participant, PPA of antigen testing with RT-PCR was 82% among 45 symptomatic people and 52% among 343 asymptomatic people. Compared with RT-PCR and virus culture, the BinaxNOW test performed well in early infection (86% and 95%, respectively) and poorly in late infection (51% and no recovered virus, respectively). LIMITATION: Accurate symptom ascertainment was challenging in nursing home residents; test performance may not be representative of testing done by nonlaboratory staff. CONCLUSION: Despite lower positive agreement compared with RT-PCR, antigen test positivity had higher agreement with shedding of replication-competent virus. These results suggest that antigen testing could be a useful tool to rapidly identify contagious people at risk for transmitting SARS-CoV-2 during nascent outbreaks and help reduce COVID-19 burden in nursing homes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 testing remains essential for early identification and clinical management of cases. We compared the diagnostic performance of three specimen types for characterizing SARS-CoV-2 in infected nursing home residents. METHODS: A convenience sample of 17 residents were enrolled within 15 days of first positive SARS-CoV-2 result by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and prospectively followed for 42 days. Anterior nasal swabs (AN), oropharyngeal swabs (OP), and saliva specimens (SA) were collected on the day of enrollment, every 3 days for the first 21 days, then weekly for 21 days. Specimens were tested for presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA using RT-PCR and replication-competent virus by viral culture. RESULTS: Comparing the three specimen types collected from each participant at each time point, the concordance of paired RT-PCR results ranged from 80-88%. After the first positive result, SA and OP were RT-PCR-positive for ≤48 days; AN were RT-PCR-positive for ≤33 days. AN had the highest percentage of RT-PCR-positive results (81%; 21/26) when collected ≤10 days of participants' first positive result. Eleven specimens were positive by viral culture: nine AN collected ≤19 days following first positive result and two OP collected ≤5 days following first positive result. CONCLUSIONS: AN, OP, and SA were effective methods for repeated testing in this population. More AN than OP were positive by viral culture. SA and OP remained RT-PCR-positive longer than AN, which could lead to unnecessary interventions if RT-PCR detection occurred after viral shedding has likely ceased.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We determine the percentage of diagnosed and undiagnosed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among a sample of US emergency department (ED) health care personnel before July 2020. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional analysis of ED health care personnel in 20 geographically diverse university-affiliated EDs from May 13, to July 8, 2020, including case counts of prior laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnoses among all ED health care personnel, and then point-in-time serology (with confirmatory testing) and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction testing in a sample of volunteers without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Health care staff were categorized as clinical (physicians, advanced practice providers, and nurses) and nonclinical (clerks, social workers, and case managers). Previously undiagnosed infection was based on positive SARS-CoV-2 serology or reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction result among health care personnel without prior diagnosis. RESULTS: Diagnosed COVID-19 occurred in 2.8% of health care personnel (193/6,788), and the prevalence was similar for nonclinical and clinical staff (3.8% versus 2.7%; odds ratio 1.5; 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.2). Among 1,606 health care personnel without previously diagnosed COVID-19, 29 (1.8%) had evidence of current or past SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most (62%; 18/29) who were seropositive did not think they had been infected, 76% (19/25) recalled COVID-19-compatible symptoms, and 89% (17/19) continued to work while symptomatic. Accounting for both diagnosed and undiagnosed infections, 4.6% (95% confidence interval 2.8% to 7.5%) of ED health care personnel were estimated to have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with 38% of those infections undiagnosed. CONCLUSION: In late spring and early summer 2020, the estimated prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection was 4.6%, and greater than one third of infections were undiagnosed. Undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection may pose substantial risk for transmission to other staff and patients.

BACKGROUND: To estimate the infectious period of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in older adults with underlying conditions, we assessed duration of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms, reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) positivity, and culture positivity among nursing home residents. METHODS: We enrolled residents within 15 days of their first positive SARS-CoV-2 test (diagnosis) at an Arkansas facility from July 7 to 15, 2020 and instead them for 42 days. Every 3 days for 21 days and then weekly, we assessed COVID-19 symptoms, collected specimens (oropharyngeal, anterior nares, and saliva), and reviewed medical charts. Blood for serology was collected on days 0, 6, 12, 21, and 42. Infectivity was defined by positive culture. Duration of culture positivity was compared with duration of COVID-19 symptoms and RT-PCR positivity. Data were summarized using measures of central tendency, frequencies, and proportions. RESULTS: We enrolled 17 of 39 (44%) eligible residents. Median participant age was 82 years (range, 58-97 years). All had ≥3 underlying conditions. Median duration of RT-PCR positivity was 22 days (interquartile range [IQR], 8-31 days) from diagnosis; median duration of symptoms was 42 days (IQR, 28-49 days). Of 9 (53%) participants with any culture-positive specimens, 1 (11%) severely immunocompromised participant remained culture-positive 19 days from diagnosis; 8 of 9 (89%) were culture-positive ≤8 days from diagnosis. Seroconversion occurred in 12 of 12 (100%) surviving participants with ≥1 blood specimen; all participants were culture-negative before seroconversion. CONCLUSIONS: Duration of infectivity was considerably shorter than duration of symptoms and RT-PCR positivity. Severe immunocompromise may prolong SARS-CoV-2 infectivity. Seroconversion indicated noninfectivity in this cohort.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has highlighted the vulnerability of residents and staff members in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) (1). Although skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) certified by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have federal COVID-19 reporting requirements, national surveillance data are less readily available for other types of LTCFs, such as assisted living facilities (ALFs) and those providing similar residential care. However, many state and territorial health departments publicly report COVID-19 surveillance data across various types of LTCFs. These data were systematically retrieved from health department websites to characterize COVID-19 cases and deaths in ALF residents and staff members. Limited ALF COVID-19 data were available for 39 states, although reporting varied. By October 15, 2020, among 28,623 ALFs, 6,440 (22%) had at least one COVID-19 case among residents or staff members. Among the states with available data, the proportion of COVID-19 cases that were fatal was 21.2% for ALF residents, 0.3% for ALF staff members, and 2.5% overall for the general population of these states. To prevent the introduction and spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in their facilities, ALFs should 1) identify a point of contact at the local health department; 2) educate residents, families, and staff members about COVID-19; 3) have a plan for visitor and staff member restrictions; 4) encourage social (physical) distancing and the use of masks, as appropriate; 5) implement recommended infection prevention and control practices and provide access to supplies; 6) rapidly identify and properly respond to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases in residents and staff members; and 7) conduct surveillance of COVID-19 cases and deaths, facility staffing, and supply information (2).

BACKGROUND: An increase in Mycoplasma pneumoniae-associated Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) cases at a Colorado pediatric hospital led to an outbreak investigation. We describe the epidemiologic and molecular characteristics of M. pneumoniae among SJS case-patients and surrounding community members during the outbreak. METHODS: M. pneumoniae PCR-positive respiratory specimens from 5 Colorado hospitals and 4 referral laboratories underwent confirmatory PCR testing; positive specimens then underwent multilocus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis (MLVA) and macrolide resistance testing. Three SJS-M. pneumoniae case-patient households were surveyed using a standardized questionnaire, and nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs were obtained from all consenting/assenting household contacts. ICD-9 codes were used to identify pneumonia cases among Colorado patients aged 5-21 years from January 2009- March 2014. RESULTS: Three different M. pneumoniae MLVA types were identified among the 5 SJS case-patients with confirmed infection; MLVA type 3-X-6-2 was seen more commonly in SJS case-patients (60%) than in 69 non-SJS community specimens (29%). Macrolide resistance was identified in 7% of community specimens but not among SJS case-patients. Of 15 household contacts, 5 (33%) were M. pneumoniae-positive; all MLVA types were identical to those of the corresponding SJS case-patient, although the specimen from one contact was macrolide-resistant. Overall pneumonia cases as well as those caused by M. pneumoniae specifically peaked in October, 2013, coinciding with the SJS outbreak. CONCLUSIONS: The outbreak of M. pneumoniae-associated SJS may have been associated with a community outbreak of M. pneumoniae; clinicians should be aware of the M. pneumoniae-SJS relationship. Household transmission of M. pneumoniae was common within the households investigated.

Mycoplasma pneumoniae was detected in a number of patients with community-acquired pneumonia in a recent prospective study. To assess whether other pathogens were also detected in these patients, TaqMan Array Cards were used to test 216 M pneumoniae-positive respiratory specimens for 25 additional viral and bacterial respiratory pathogens. It is interesting to note that 1 or more codetections, predominantly bacterial, were identified in approximately 60% of specimens, with codetections being more common in children.

BACKGROUND: Mycoplasma pneumoniae is a common cause of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). The molecular characteristics of M pneumoniae detected in patients hospitalized with CAP in the United States are poorly described. METHODS: We performed molecular characterization of M pneumoniae in nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs from children and adults hospitalized with CAP in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Etiology of Pneumonia in the Community (EPIC) study, including P1 typing, multilocus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis (MLVA), and macrolide susceptibility genotyping. RESULTS: Of 216 M pneumoniae polymerase chain reaction-positive specimens, 40 (18.5%) were obtained from adults and 176 (81.5%) from children. P1 type distribution differed between adults (64% type 1 and 36% type 2) and children (84% type 1, 13% type 2, and 3% variant) (P < .05) and among sites (P < .01). Significant differences in the proportions of MLVA types 4/5/7/2 and 3/5/6/2 were also observed by age group (P < .01) and site (P < .01). A macrolide-resistant genotype was identified in 7 (3.5%) specimens, 5 of which were from patients who had recently received macrolide therapy. No significant differences in clinical characteristics were identified among patients with various strain types or between macrolide-resistant and -sensitive M pneumoniae infections. CONCLUSIONS: The P1 type 1 genotype and MLVA type 4/5/7/2 predominated, but there were differences between children and adults and among sites. Macrolide resistance was rare. Differences in strain types did not appear to be associated with differences in clinical outcomes. Whole genome sequencing of M pneumoniae may help identify better ways to characterize strains.